rodshaw
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Any film that acknowledges the distinction between proper socialism and what we are generally told is socialism/communism, and can present socialism clearly and convincingly as highly desirable. Not in some sci-fi film set in the distant future, but in a realistic fiction set in the present. In short, a film that makes people say, "We can have that now and we want it!"
SardaI quite agree. We in the Socialist Party say that socialism is intelligible to the vast majority – otherwise there'd be no point advocating it – so I think postings like #1 have to be taken for what they are – to be discussed by those who enjoy discussing such things (not me), and not to be thought of as essential reading for all.
On the bright side, a recent survey has revealed that only 1 in 4 people in Britain would be prepared to go to war for 'their' country. A university professor of war studies thinks this is largely to do with people being less willing to trust authority and what their governments tell them.A step in the right direction, at least, though the global average of people who'd be willing to go to war is apparently 60 percent.
Someone I argued with (a normal working class chap) told me that not only did he not agree with my idea of socialism, but he would actively oppose such a society being established.I think that most people who have heard the case for socialism and rejected it (and I'm not convinced there are that many) are doing so because they know their world view belongs to the majority and they don't really think there's any chance of it happening. Or if they do, they see it as a threat to their lifestyles. If socialism were to gain significantly more support (presumably from people other than the type described) their views would start to change too.
ALB wrote:This is what we mean when we use the term, but are we sure it is what most of those who read or hear us understand us to mean?Most definitely not. We are at odds with the vast majority in our interpretation of the term 'working class'. Most people don't see the world as simply divided into working class and capitalist. They see things as being far more complicated than that, with at least three classes and various shades of grey in between, because they don't get the essential political distinction.So unless we always qualify the term whenever we use it, people will mostly misunderstand what we mean. Not their fault, really.Maybe we should switch to using 'producer' and 'parasite' instead.
He's certainly hit a nerve with the braying horses of the establishment. He's getting revolution talked about, and good for him.Imagine the vitriol that would be hurled at the WSM by the mainstream press if we got as much publicity as Brand is getting. I wish.
“every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge”“What is remarkable is that these principles have underwritten the collaboration of tens of thousands of people across the world in the production of a massive global resource. Wikipedia shows that productive non-market egalitarian collaboration on a very wide scale is possible.”Have we approached them and asked what they think about extending this to apply to all the world's resources, not just knowledge? We may have a few allies there.Their own article on censorship is also interesting, if not surprising. It doesn't mention them being censored in the US but I bet they are watched pretty closely from certain quarters.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Wikipedia
It's well and good to remember the horrors of war and the people who die so needlessly in them. But the underlying message of all this poppy stuff, and the TV programmes about WWI, is that it's a necessity and an honour to fight and die for your country. And then of course there's all the puke-inducing religious stuff that goes with it.Refuse to have anything to do with it and people think you're churlish or mad.Not forgetting having Children In Need rammed down your throat as well…the BBC are really milking it this time of year.
Liddle ought to stick to writing about football, where he can sometimes be amusing when not being boorish. He's one of those figures who has 'mellowed with age', politically speaking. Not that there was much there to begin with – he was in the SWP for a short while.
It's a pity we can't get him into a room for a one-on-one with a party member. Seems to me his attitude could be fluid enough that he might easily be open to persuasion on the 'non-socialist' aspects of his views, e,g, on the continued existence of money.Not that I think he'd join the party anyway, but at least he might then start saying the same as us, and reach a lot more people than we are. He might even be prepared to point people to the WSM website.But there you are, wishful thinking again.
In a nutshell, Paramjeet, the capitalist system exists because the majority, actively or passively, allow it to continue. It's time they stopped doing so.
If this carries on, isn't the Church of England going to have to have a purge, or alternatively redefine itself as being a not necessarily religious organisation? Or will they just tag it under 'God working in mysterious ways'?
He was on Radio 4 this morning. If he can at least get a few people to pull the blinkers from their eyes, good for him I say. And especially if he can stand up to some of the ridiculous criticism he gets from people trying to defend the status quo.
